090501ED

Page 33486

1 we? We still have to start with any cross-examination, but you haven't

2 finished either. So let's continue with Ms. Soljan first.

3 JUDGE KWON: Ms. Soljan, my apology, but I don't think I did

4 follow in full when you covered the -- some part of illogical connection.

5 Could you cover that part again?

6 MS. SOLJAN: I'd be happy to, Your Honour.

7 JUDGE KWON: Thank you, please.

8 WITNESS: DUSAN JANC [Resumed]

9 Examination by Ms. Soljan: [Continued]

10 Q. Good morning, Mr. Janc.

11 A. Good morning.

12 Q. Now, you testified a few days ago that you recently reviewed a

13 report concerning a person's tooth found at the Kravica warehouse.

14 A. Yes.

15 Q. And in it you also stated that that same person's body parts have

16 now been found or identified in the secondary mass grave of Zeleni Jadar,

17 meaning that a DNA connection exists --

18 A. Yes, indeed.

19 Q. -- between Kravica warehouse and Zeleni Jadar?

20 A. Yes:

21 MS. SOLJAN: Could we please have Exhibit 4525.

22 Q. Do you recognise this exhibit Mr. Janc?

23 A. Yes, this is the report I was reviewing, report by Michael

24 Hedley.

25 MS. SOLJAN: Could we go to page 10 of this report, please.

Page 33487

1 Q. Mr. Janc, could you please read out the portion of the text in

2 this page which refers to the finding of the tooth.

3 A. Yes, it is the second paragraph which starts "a fifth" -- which

4 starts with:

5 "A fifth visit was made to the warehouse on the 13th of October,

6 2000, and a detailed examination was made of the base of the entrance

7 doorway to the right of the warehouse. Upon removal of the accumulated

8 earth and debris, at this point a broken human tooth was found." And

9 then we have this code next to it, KA01/110BP. And then:

10 "In addition pathologist Dr. John Clark later confirmed its human

11 origin."

12 Q. Now, Mr. Janc, the number referred to, KA01/110BP, what is this

13 number?

14 A. This is a number which was assigned at the -- for this particular

15 tooth which was found at the spot. So number represent the particular --

16 particular body part found in this place.

17 Q. And who assigns this kind of a number to your understanding?

18 A. These numbers are assigned always by the crime of scene officer.

19 So who is conducting the crime scene investigation, this person is always

20 assigning these numbers.

21 Q. Okay. And how do you know this information?

22 A. I know this information from the exhumation reports which I was

23 reviewing because the methodology and the procedure is always the same,

24 and also I'm familiar with these procedures, because it's a common

25 procedure during the crime scene investigation that you are giving the

Page 33488

1 sequent numbers for the certain evidence you find during the

2 investigation.

3 MS. SOLJAN: Could we please have confidential Annex D? This is

4 4491. Not to be broadcast, please. And page 251. So this would be

5 RO657797, or page 251 in e-court, please.

6 Q. And Mr. Janc, could you locate -- could you tell us what this

7 spreadsheet represents, please?

8 A. This spreadsheet represents not counted cases regarding the DNA

9 connections. So -- and here we have a list with the names included.

10 Q. And can you remind us why these cases were not counted by you?

11 A. As I explained, there were several reasons for that. One was

12 being because there were connections between primary graves, Ravnice 1

13 and Ravnice 2. The second reason was being because they were related to

14 the same group of graves within Glogova 2, so because we have several

15 sub-graves in Glogova 2 and then we have connections between, for

16 example, Glogova 2 and 8. And the third reason was because they were

17 illogical in terms of how those connections would be found or connected

18 between each other because, for example, we have primary grave which is

19 not as disturbed, and then we have connection between the individual

20 inside this grave and the individual which was found in totally different

21 location or grave or secondary grave.

22 Q. Okay. And you had indicated on record when you last testified

23 that the connection between the Kravica warehouse and Zeleni Jadar also

24 appeared illogical to you in the beginning; is that right?

25 A. Not that illogical. The problem with this particular case was

Page 33489

1 that I did not have enough -- enough information about what this KA01

2 represent. That was the problem with this particular case. So that's

3 why I did not include this one in the connection chart because I did not

4 know where exactly to put it. So but I did count this case separately.

5 Q. Okay. And if you look at this particular page on the

6 spreadsheet, can you locate that number, KA01/110BP we just discussed?

7 A. Yes, I can locate it.

8 Q. Okay.

9 A. You can see it in the column case ID, which is the fourth column.

10 So somewhere in the middle you will see this KA01/110BP.

11 MS. SOLJAN: Could we perhaps zoom in a little bit so we can see

12 the first five columns more clearly, and in particular the middle

13 portion.

14 A. Yes, you can see this number now on the right-hand side which is

15 attached to the individuals, IS.

16 Q. And Mr. Janc, just to the right of this column, the case ID

17 column, is -- we see a protocol number, and that's 10417/07, and the same

18 protocol number is repeated two times below it. What does this

19 repetition mean?

20 A. This repetition mean that there is a re-association so -- to the

21 main case. In this case, main case was assigned to the tooth which was

22 found at Kravica warehouse, and then later on, other pieces of the same

23 individuals have been found in Zeleni Jadar grave.

24 Q. Okay. And in particular which Zeleni Jadar grave were they found

25 in?

Page 33490

1 A. It says -- just let my consult my report. It is in Zeleni Jadar

2 number 2.

3 Q. Okay. And yet, Mr. Janc, the case ID for the same individual

4 with the same protocol number indicates ZJA04. Can you explain what that

5 means, if you know?

6 A. Yes. This is site code which was assigned to this particular

7 grave by the officer who was conducting the exhumation at the beginning

8 of the exhumation. So this particular grave-site has a code ZJA04 SRE.

9 So this is the code for the entire case, for the entire grave.

10 Then you have numbers attached to this particular code, and this

11 number means the particular -- this is a sequence number of the -- all

12 the body parts or artifacts or whatever is found in the grave, so for

13 example, you have number 2 here, and it means that this body parts were

14 found as part of the evidence marked as number 2 in this particular

15 grave.

16 JUDGE KWON: Ms. Soljan, where do we find that ZJA04?

17 MS. SOLJAN: Your Honour, it would be in column 4, directly

18 underneath KA01-110BP. If you see there --

19 JUDGE KWON: Yeah.

20 MS. SOLJAN: -- are three same protocol numbers --

21 JUDGE KWON: Thank you.

22 MS SOLJAN: -- and the two protocol numbers -- or, rather, the

23 two case IDs below KA01/110BP begin with ZJA04.

24 Q. Mr. Janc, you called this Zeleni Jadar 2, yet the number is

25 ZJA04. Can you explain whether that's a discrepancy or not?

Page 33491

1 A. No, that's not a discrepancy. This number which you can see on

2 the screen was assigned by the BiH authorities, and it is different than

3 our numbers we were using before, so that's why -- and you can find the

4 both numbers in my report, so in the table which I prepared, so you can

5 find both numbers, so -- and you will find which particular grave is this

6 referred to.

7 Q. Okay. Thank you.

8 MS. SOLJAN: Could we please Exhibit 4990 [sic] at page 63,

9 please. That would be X0194213. It can be broadcast. Thank you.

10 JUDGE KWON: 4490?

11 MS. SOLJAN: Precisely.

12 Q. Mr. Janc, we had mentioned earlier, some illogical connections.

13 Could you please point out on this spreadsheet one or more such

14 connections that appeared illogical to you, and just explain briefly why,

15 what made them appear illogical to you.

16 A. Yes.

17 MS. SOLJAN: And if we could perhaps zoom in again so that we can

18 see at least the first four rows more clearly. Including the top, the

19 very top, please. Thank you.

20 THE WITNESS: Okay. We can see the first line, the individual

21 with protocol ID 8019/06. Here we have DNA connection between Cerska

22 primary grave and Hodzici 2, that's the illogical connection to me which

23 was explained already before.

24 MS. SOLJAN:

25 Q. Could you explain it one more time, though?

Page 33492

1 A. Yes. It is connection between undisturbed primary grave and

2 secondary grave Hodzici Road. So one individual was found in two

3 locations, in these two locations. So that's what seems to be according

4 to the information which I got from the ICMP update.

5 Q. Could you go on to the next --

6 A. The next one would be --

7 JUDGE KWON: Just a second, Mr. Janc. While this connection

8 should be logical, then how can one body part be found at -- in another

9 site at all.

10 THE WITNESS: Yes, Your Honour, I can explain a little bit more

11 about it. That was when I was preparing and reviewing this stuff, these

12 were connections which were, I would say, logical for me and for each --

13 and it is not possible that one individual is find in -- okay, it's

14 possible but it is illogical. Let me explain.

15 I was checking, for example, the autopsy reports for each and

16 seeing every single body parts which is mentioned here. For example,

17 Cerska, Hodzici Road 2 and Hodzici Road 3. And I found out, of course,

18 because Cerska is primary undisturbed grave, that we have the entire body

19 found in Cerska. And then in addition to that, we have also Hodzici Road

20 and Hodzici Road 2 and 3, additional body parts found which wasn't

21 illogical. And for this particular case, my assumption was when I was

22 reviewing who are these individuals, that there were twins, and my

23 conclusion was that probably there is a mistake. One of the brothers was

24 found in Cerska, the other in Hodzici Road.

25 And I was doing the same thing, meaning checking the autopsy

Page 33493

1 reports for the all illogical connections which you can see here. And

2 the same conclusions were found. So that body part of -- or same body

3 parts of the individuals of the one individual were found, for example,

4 in two different graves. So for example, you have two lower legs in both

5 cases, so that was then also illogical.

6 And because of that we have sent the question to the ICMP

7 directly because they are the source of this problem, actually, to

8 clarify these things. And they have just recently responded to us and

9 with the response they basically agreed that there is most be probably

10 mistake and they have explained why this mistake could have happened.

11 JUDGE KWON: Let's go back to the one referred to in the first

12 line. Do you know what it was that was found in Hodzici Road 2 and

13 Hodzici Road 3?

14 THE WITNESS: No, I don't know from the top of my head exactly

15 what was found there, but -- no, I would have to consult my -- the

16 autopsy reports.

17 JUDGE KWON: You said you assumed that those may be twins.

18 THE WITNESS: Yeah.

19 JUDGE KWON: What is your basis of that assumption on your part?

20 THE WITNESS: My basis was that I have checked the ICRC missing

21 list where I have found these two individuals, brothers found on that

22 list, they were born on the same date. And I think that I've checked

23 also -- for all of the cases I have checked the autopsy reports. But I

24 cannot tell you exactly which body parts were found where now. I would

25 have to consult the autopsy report again.

Page 33494

1 JUDGE KWON: In any event, your assumption started -- was based

2 on your knowledge that the Cerska is the one that has been never been

3 disturbed?

4 THE WITNESS: Yes, that was the basis for all of these cases

5 which were illogical to me, but I did not exclude the possibility totally

6 that this couldn't happen. That's why we consulted -- that's why I have

7 checked the autopsy reports first and then also we were trying to get the

8 clarification from the ICMP.

9 JUDGE KWON: Thank you.

10 MS. SOLJAN: Your Honours, I can actually take him back to that

11 very same page that we were looking at before at Annex D, it may also

12 help clarify a little bit.

13 JUDGE KWON: Thank you.

14 MS. SOLJAN: So this would be page 251, and not broadcast,

15 please, of 4491.

16 Q. Mr. Janc, can you see on this spreadsheet the case that you were

17 just discussing or, rather, the connection that you were just discussing?

18 A. Yeah, this is the first four entries you can see on the screen.

19 Q. And what was the basis of your assumption that it was brothers,

20 that it could have been twins that had been identified?

21 A. Yes, now you can see on the screen that they are referring to two

22 names in here, so either of them was found in these two graves, so and

23 they have assigned one protocol ID to both, so when I've checked those

24 two names on ICRC missing list, so I found out that they are twins.

25 JUDGE KWON: You said one protocol ID?

Page 33495

1 THE WITNESS: Yes, one protocol ID.

2 JUDGE KWON: But one with Rs.

3 THE WITNESS: Yes, I can explain it. The most important is first

4 part of the protocol ID which says 1 -- 8019, and then also slash 06.

5 Without R, these are the main cases; with R, it means usually

6 re-association to the main case, so it is actually reference to the same

7 person.

8 JUDGE KWON: Yes, proceed, Ms. Soljan.

9 MS. SOLJAN: Thank you, Your Honour.

10 Q. And, Mr. Janc, going back to the case that we had just discussed,

11 the connection, the body that was found both at the Kravica -- part of

12 the body that was found at Kravica warehouse as well as Zeleni Jadar

13 secondary grave, can we locate this connection in your chart at the end

14 of Annex C?

15 A. No.

16 Q. And why is that?

17 A. Because at that time I was not aware of this connection, what

18 this KA means.

19 Q. Okay.

20 MS. SOLJAN: Can we go to Exhibit P4490, page 65 of it, please.

21 Perhaps we can just close in on the left portion of it. Thank you.

22 Q. Now, Mr. Janc, you had mentioned earlier that one case represents

23 one connection?

24 A. Yes.

25 Q. In the case of the Kravica warehouse to Zeleni Jadar or, rather,

Page 33496

1 to two body parts in Zeleni Jadar, how many connections would that

2 represent between the primary location and the secondary grave?

3 A. One connection.

4 Q. Okay.

5 A. One case.

6 Q. Okay. And let's, for example, focus on this chart. It shows

7 there -- first of all, there are two lines that connect the primary grave

8 of Branjevo farm in Pilica, a blue line with writing that says, "Soil,

9 pollen samples, blindfolds, and ligatures." And then a red line that

10 says, "20 cases." Can you just briefly explain what that means, what the

11 difference between the two lines is?

12 A. Yes, the blue line represent the forensic evidence connections

13 between those two sites. The red lines means the DNA connections.

14 Q. Okay. Thank you.

15 MS. SOLJAN: Can we go to Exhibit 2996, please.

16 Q. Mr. Janc, are you familiar with this exhibit?

17 A. Yes, I am.

18 MS. SOLJAN: And perhaps we could zoom out.

19 Q. Do you know what this exhibit is?

20 A. Yeah. This is the map regarding Srebrenica mass graves showing

21 the distribution of bodies between primary and secondary graves which was

22 used by Dean Manning, and prepared by him.

23 Q. Thank you.

24 MS. SOLJAN: Could we have Exhibit 4524, please. And,

25 Your Honours, we had distributed courtesy copies of this upcoming exhibit

Page 33497

1 for easier viewing. Please let me know if you need another copy.

2 Q. Mr. Janc, do you recognise this document?

3 A. Yes.

4 Q. Can you tell us what it is?

5 A. This is the map I prepared for this testimony, so it is the

6 updated version of previous map.

7 Q. And how is it different from the previous map?

8 A. Yeah. Now, this one is related to DNA and forensic evidence

9 connections. Previous one was just evidence -- forensic evidence

10 connections map, so this one is related to both DNA and forensic evidence

11 connections, and what is difference between this one and previous one,

12 it's -- there are some new graves which were discovered lately or -- yes,

13 lately, which you can find these graves on this map which are part of my

14 report. And also you can see different lines, green lines which I can

15 explain in detail.

16 MS. SOLJAN: Can we please close in on the upper part -- upper

17 half of this map, please. Thank you.

18 Q. Mr. Janc, can you explain what this upper half represents?

19 A. Yes. This upper half represent -- you have these red arrows

20 which means the same as before, these are related to transportation of

21 bodies from primary to secondary graves. So and now, then you have green

22 dots which represent secondary mass graves. These red dots represent

23 primary mass graves, and then have clusters around these green dots, so

24 each cluster represents these areas of graves, for example, from

25 Hodzici Road, Liplje and Cancari Road.

Page 33498

1 Q. Can you explain specifically how the -- for example, how one set

2 of secondary graves relates to a set of primary graves, or rather, what

3 the map shows?

4 A. Yes, the map shows what kind of evidence or connections we have

5 now that we can link these primary graves with secondary graves. So, for

6 example, if you look into Orahovac 1 and 2, forensic evidence and DNA

7 connections both link all the Hodzici Road graves with the -- this

8 particular primary grave. And this is the same for all the others.

9 Q. With respect to, for example, the Orahovac or Lazete to Hodzici

10 secondary graves, is there a direct DNA link between the primary grave

11 and all the Hodzici Road secondary graves?

12 A. Yes. We have a directly link DNA link between Orahovac to all

13 the Hodzici Road graves. But, for example, I think I will consult just

14 briefly my report, because one number -- Orahovac number 1 ...

15 JUDGE KWON: In the meantime, Ms. Soljan, do you have copies

16 available now?

17 MS. SOLJAN: Yes, Your Honour.

18 JUDGE KWON: No, we haven't received them.

19 THE WITNESS: Yes, I have found it. So we have DNA connection

20 between Orahovac 1 and Hodzici Road 5, actually we have seven DNA

21 connections. Then we have DNA connections between Orahovac 2 with all

22 the other graves on Hodzici Road.

23 MS. SOLJAN:

24 Q. And what does that mean?

25 A. It means that body parts of the same individual have been found

Page 33499

1 in both locations, so in primary grave and also in secondary grave.

2 Q. Thank you. And can you tell us what the situation is with

3 respect to the secondary grave connection to the Petkovci dam?

4 A. It is the same situation here. We have DNA connections between

5 Petkovci dam and - I will consult my report again - I think all of them.

6 Yes, we have DNA connections between Petkovci dam and all the secondary

7 graves in Liplje.

8 Q. How about the Kozluk primary grave?

9 A. It is the same. Although we don't have direct connections with

10 all of the Kozluk graves -- with all of the secondary graves because

11 number 4 and 6 were just recently exhumed, so we don't have any

12 connections yet, but in respect to the others, you can find it in my

13 report to which particular graves we have DNA connection established.

14 Q. And Mr. Janc, you also have green arrows between one cluster of

15 Cancari Road graves, Cancari Road graves 8 through 12, and the other

16 cluster of Cancari Road graves 2 through 7, can you explain what that

17 little green arrows mean?

18 A. This green arrow -- or all of them, all of those green arrows in

19 this chart represent the DNA connections between secondary graves. So I

20 found also two DNA connections between Hodzici Road and Liplje and also

21 between different clusters of Cancari Road graves. So in ICMP March

22 update you can find two connections between these two secondary graves.

23 Q. Thank you.

24 JUDGE KWON: What would it mean, Mr. Janc?

25 THE WITNESS: In case they are correct, and I will explain why

Page 33500

1 I'm talking about that. We have two connections between these two

2 secondary graves, and one of those was also on the list which was at that

3 time illogical to me. So and that connection between Hodzici Road 5 and

4 Liplje 2 was on the list which we have sent to the ICMP for

5 clarification. So pending their response, we received the updated

6 version of the -- updated version in March, and there was additional

7 connection between Hodzici Road 2, 7 and Liplje 2 again. That's why I

8 have included these connections into my chart. So we have received the

9 response from the ICMP now saying that the first connection between

10 Hodzici Road 5 and Liplje 2 is, I think, mistake.

11 So when you have connections, I would say, between -- when you

12 have just few connections between two sites, you have to be very careful

13 about it to make any conclusion. When you have several connections, you

14 can say that you have strong connections between two sites and you can

15 conclude that these two sites are connected.

16 Nevertheless, just let me finish this, if connection exist

17 between Hodzici Road and Liplje, it shows again that most probably, or,

18 you know, this is my conclusion, same transport means have been used

19 when -- during the reburial, for example. So -- and that one site was

20 contaminated. So body part, for example, stayed on the truck and then it

21 was -- it was disposed into a grave on the other location.

22 So it's not that illogical because we know that reburials in this

23 area have followed each other, and it's possible that the connection

24 between two sites can be established or found.

25 MS. SOLJAN:

Page 33501

1 Q. And, Mr. Janc, with respect to the Cancari -- connections between

2 the Cancari grave secondary grave connections, you mentioned that when

3 you have several connections you have a strong connection between two

4 sites. Do you recall how many connections you found between the Cancari

5 secondary graves, approximately or?

6 A. You mean between these two clusters of graves?

7 Q. Precisely.

8 A. There are two connections.

9 Q. Okay. Thank you.

10 Now, Mr. Janc, in your report --

11 MS. SOLJAN: Can we go back to the lower half of this exhibit,

12 please.

13 Q. Mr. Janc, can you explain what we see there?

14 A. Yes. First of all, you can see a lot of red dots around

15 Konjevic Polje and Nova Kasaba so these are all new graves. And what is

16 new in this chart you can see in small letters. So what is in capital

17 letters, so that was already there before.

18 Q. And where did you find out information about these new graves or

19 newly added graves?

20 A. I found this information on the exhumation reports which were

21 provided to us by the BiH authorities.

22 MS. SOLJAN: And Your Honours, for the record, the various

23 exhumation reports provide by the BiH authorities, those are Exhibits

24 4502 to 4523, and because of the massive amount of material I don't

25 intend to go through all of those, but those are referred to in his

Page 33502

1 report.

2 Q. So, Mr. Janc, can you then explain what we see in this lower part

3 of the map?

4 A. Yeah, it's very similar then in the upper part of it. So you can

5 see the red arrows showing the transportation of bodies.

6 Q. Mm-hmm.

7 A. And now you can see we have some new arrows from -- going from

8 Glogova to Bljeceva 1 and 2, 3, and Budak 1 and 2 which were not on

9 previous map. And we know that these five locations are related to

10 Glogova or actually to, yeah, they are secondary graves to Glogova

11 primary graves, so.

12 Then you have green arrows which represent -- which represent the

13 DNA connections between secondary graves. And these are quite strong

14 connections between, for example, Bljeceva and Zeleni Jadar graves, also

15 between Budak 1 and 2 to Zeleni Jadar. So one individual was found, for

16 example, in these two graves, or even three.

17 And the last arrow, you can see it's a grey one, so that's the

18 DNA connection we have established now when we were talking about just a

19 few minutes ago, so DNA connection or between execution point Kravica

20 warehouse and Zeleni Jadar grave.

21 Q. Thank you. Mr. Janc, in your report you also describe a

22 connection between a primary grave and a newly exhumed secondary grave,

23 and the connection is found based on a combination of ICMP data as well

24 as exhumation report. Can you tell us a little more about that?

25 MS. SOLJAN: And can we go to page 17 of Exhibit 4490, please.

Page 33503

1 That would be page 25 in the B/C/S.

2 THE WITNESS: Yes, indeed I found this connection. And this is

3 connection between Cancari Road 8 and primary grave Branjevo.

4 MS. SOLJAN: And can we please not broadcast. I don't remember

5 if I said that already or not.

6 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you.

7 THE WITNESS: Cancari 8 -- Cancari Road 8 secondary mass grave

8 was exhumed at the end of last year by BiH authorities. And when

9 reviewing the exhumation report from these exhumation, I found the

10 information within that there were identification documents found in that

11 grave attached to the body which was marked as 065T. And you can see it,

12 the description of this particular issue in Cancari Road 8 section of my

13 report.

14 So this particular individual or body parts of this particular

15 individual have been found previously already in Branjevo farm. So the

16 conclusion here would be that these particular individual have been found

17 in two different locations, although we don't have the actual DNA report

18 about it yet.

19 MS. SOLJAN: Can we please have Exhibit 4504.

20 Q. Can you tell us what this document is, Mr. Janc?

21 A. Yes. This is exhumation report.

22 Q. And --

23 A. For --

24 MS. SOLJAN: Can we zoom out, please.

25 THE WITNESS: For Cancari Road 8.

Page 33504

1 MS. SOLJAN:

2 Q. Where can you find this information?

3 A. You can see in the middle of the -- of that page in bolded text,

4 site code assigned to this particular site was KAM 08 ZVO. And this

5 particular site was related to Cancari Road 8.

6 MS. SOLJAN: And can we go to page 7 of this report. Not to

7 broadcast, please.

8 Q. Mr. Janc, can you tell us what you see on this page of the

9 document?

10 A. Yes, this is what I was talking about before. So you can see on

11 the particular body which is marked with 065 T, and then you have

12 description what was found, so the body without certain parts of it,

13 together with the driving licence and identification document on this

14 name.

15 JUDGE KWON: Do you know what that is? An identification

16 document?

17 THE WITNESS: It's identification -- it's identification ID,

18 usual ID for the person, "Licna karta."

19 MS. SOLJAN: Your Honours, he can also read out the portion that

20 relates to the ID, and we can do this in private session so that the name

21 can be said out loud.

22 JUDGE KWON: Yes. You can read it without the name.

23 MS. SOLJAN: There is that option as well.

24 Q. Could you read it without the name as well as without the

25 particular address information if such exists?

Page 33506

1 [Open session]

2 MS. SOLJAN:

3 Q. And Mr. Janc, when we were just looking at this connection

4 between Cancari 8, Kamenica 8 and Branjevo farm execution site, there was

5 a lot of red text in that portion of your report. What does the red text

6 signify?

7 A. Yes, the red text is what is added in regard to Dean Manning's

8 report. So this -- what you can see in this report in red text, that's

9 what I have added in regards to the Dean Manning's report. All the rest

10 what is in black text is part of Dean Manning's report.

11 Q. And there are various ERNs that are referred to in that red text,

12 what do they tend to refer to? ERN ranges?

13 A. These ERN ranges which are at the end of each text refers to the

14 documents or the communication we have received from BiH authorities and

15 are related to these particular grave-site so that you can find more

16 information in this material.

17 Q. And do you refer to these BiH documents throughout the report --

18 A. Yes.

19 Q. -- in the same manner? So one final question on the connections

20 issue, Mr. Janc. Do the numbers of DNA connections that you come up in

21 Annex C in your report, do they effect the actual current overall number

22 of Srebrenica victims?

23 A. No. This is separate analysis done just to show how many

24 connections we have, so it has nothing to do with the actual

25 identification of the individuals.

Page 33507

1 Q. Okay. And based on your analysis of the March 2009 ICMP update,

2 what is the current number of Srebrenica victims identified via DNA

3 analysis in graves?

4 A. It is 5.358. You can see it from the first page or actually

5 second page of my report, and it is also repeated on the fifth page of my

6 report. So you can find --

7 MS. SOLJAN: Can we go to Exhibit 4490, page 2, please.

8 Q. And what kinds of graves included in this count of 5.358

9 Srebrenica victims?

10 A. These are all the graves we have any information on that these

11 individual have been found in these graves. So this total calculation or

12 number is related to all the mass primary and secondary graves, then

13 those smaller graves which contains up to 10 individuals, and also

14 individual graves.

15 Q. Okay. And Mr. Janc, you state in the report that the current

16 number of the Srebrenica victims also includes 294 unique

17 Srebrenica-related DNA profiles which have not yet been matched to a

18 missing person. Can you explain what these unique profiles are?

19 A. The unique profiles are the individuals for which the DNA profile

20 has been established already, but there were -- there was no DNA match

21 established yet because the ICMP does not have a donor for this

22 particular individual, so it means basically that we have confirmation

23 that one additional individual has been found in particular grave but we

24 just don't know his name.

25 Q. And were these unique profiles a part of the March ICMP update?

Page 33508

1 A. Yes, they were.

2 MS. SOLJAN: Can we just briefly go to Exhibit 4494A, second

3 page. Second page, please.

4 Q. Mr. Janc, what is this?

5 A. This is sample page again of the Excel spreadsheet which was

6 provided to us by the ICMP and it relates to the unique DNA profiles.

7 Q. And do you know what the source case number and the target case

8 number mean?

9 A. Yes. If we can simplify that that you can understand this, on

10 the left-hand side you have source case number which basically means main

11 case, and on the right-hand side you have target case number which would

12 be re-association to this main case.

13 Q. Okay. Thank you. Now, you stated that your count of the 5.358

14 identified Srebrenica victims includes 294 unique DNA profiles, but at

15 page 5 of your report, you note that the most recent ICMP update

16 contained 304 unique profiles. Can you explain?

17 A. Yes. When we have this on the screen, yes, there were 304 unique

18 profiles provided to us, so you will find on the left-hand side, which is

19 source case number, on that spreadsheet you will find 304 such cases. So

20 I have calculated or included only 294 of those cases and I will explain

21 it why. Because nine of those cases were found in Bljeceva 1 and they

22 did not have any connection -- the connection between -- the connection

23 with the other mass grave or secondary grave was not established. So in

24 case -- in those nine cases where you have only Bljeceva 1, I did not

25 include those because Bljeceva 1 is mixed grave.

Page 33509

1 So and until we don't get a name of the individual, we don't know

2 actually if it is a Srebrenica victim or the victim of any other incident

3 for which we know is part of Bljeceva 1 grave. So there have been a lot

4 of individuals found in this grave which are related to the incident in

5 1992. So that's why I excluded or not counted those cases because you

6 can't be sure about it, that they are Srebrenica-related victims.

7 And there is one more individual which was found, or -- in

8 Liplje 8, you will find it on this spreadsheet, the individual found in

9 Liplje 8, and it's the only individual which was found there. And there

10 I have the same problem because it's not coming out from the mass grave.

11 We don't have any identifications already from this particular site

12 that -- and the victims from this grave are Srebrenica-related victims,

13 so I was not able to include this individual in total counting, so I

14 exclude that one also.

15 Q. Okay. Mr. Janc, how many graves were exhumed in 2008?

16 A. So I know that there were five exhumations of secondary mass

17 graves conducted in 2008.

18 Q. And which graves are these?

19 A. These are Zeleni Jadar 1A, Zeleni Jadar 1B, Cancari Road 4, 6,

20 and 8.

21 Q. And where in your report could we find this information?

22 A. You can find the actual date of the exhumation in the table which

23 is part of the first four pages of my report. So there you have

24 exhumation date for each particular grave-site, and you can find this

25 information there.

Page 33510

1 MS. SOLJAN: Can we go to page 2 of Exhibit 4490, please.

2 Q. Mr. Janc, so can you just explain, then, what this table

3 contains?

4 A. Yeah, you can see first column it is mass grave, then you have

5 site code which was attached to this particular site, this particular

6 mass grave, when this grave was exhumed. And the last two columns

7 relates to the number of individuals so far identified from this grave.

8 So first part of the column are the numbers which were used by

9 Dean Manning, or are contained in his report. So and then you have the

10 actual numbers next to it so that you can compare the increment.

11 Q. Okay. So, for example, if we look at your table at page 4, and

12 we were looking at the results so far of identifications based on the

13 exhumation of Zeleni Jadar 1B, what would we see?

14 A. For example, for Zeleni Jadar 1B, you can see that this site,

15 this grave-site was exhumed between 7 and 18 of July, 2008, so in

16 Dean Manning's report you have no individuals identified because at that

17 time this particular site was not exhumed yet. Now we have already

18 21 individuals which are identified in this particular grave.

19 Q. And if we wanted to see the list of these individuals, where in

20 your report would we go for this?

21 A. You have to consult the confidential Annex D where you will find

22 all the individuals which are part of this grave-site, or any of these

23 grave-sites.

24 MS. SOLJAN: And if we just briefly go to Exhibit 4491, page 150.

25 Not broadcast, please. And the next page, please.

Page 33511

1 Q. Can you just explain to us what this is?

2 A. Yes. This is what I was talking about. So these are the

3 individuals, 21 individuals which were found or identified from the

4 Zeleni Jadar 1B grave. And you can see by the end last two entries, we

5 don't have a name for these two individuals, so that means that these are

6 unique DNA profiles. So whenever you see in confidential Annex D, this

7 kind of entry, that means that these are related to the unique DNA

8 profiles, so and you will always find them at the end of each

9 spreadsheet, like here.

10 Q. Thank you. And going back to your report at page 5, page 6 of

11 the B/C/S, right up before the totals you include a category called

12 "Others and Serbia related."

13 MS. SOLJAN: And this is again Exhibit 4490, page 5, or 6, B/C/S.

14 Q. What does this "Others and Serbia related" category mean, please?

15 A. Yes, others are the graves or surface remains, individuals from

16 which sites were also found in the ICMP 2009 update. And I was not able

17 to make any conclusions so if these are the individuals found in the

18 grave or surface remains, because we did not have sufficient or any

19 information on these cases. So I have put it -- these 45 individuals in

20 total in the table which is towards the end, to the end of Annex A.

21 And then we have also 18 individuals which are related to Serbia.

22 So when we consulted ICMP regarding these Serbia cases, what do they

23 mean, they explained it to us that these are individuals which were found

24 along the Drina river during the -- or after the Srebrenica events, and

25 so they were recovered in Serbia.

Page 33512

1 So both numbers, 45, those others and Serbia related, so together

2 is 63 individuals so far identified.

3 Q. Mr. Janc, in the totals column for the data obtained by

4 Dean Manning you have 4.238. Where did you obtain this number?

5 A. This number is coming out from his report.

6 Q. Okay. And specifically?

7 A. Specifically last part of his report where he is presenting the

8 numbers in the tables also as I'm doing here. So -- but he was in total

9 calculation in his report, the beginning of his report is lower than you

10 can see here for, I think, around 200 cases, but that's because

11 Dean Manning was not confident enough to include Bljeceva-related and

12 Budak-related cases into the total calculation, and also I think it's

13 Sandici was also the problem for him because he was not confident that

14 these are Srebrenica-related cases.

15 JUDGE KWON: Excuse me, Ms. Soljan, if I may go back to the

16 number 63 that related to others and Serbia related, I wonder if those

17 were -- Mr. Janc also has found some kind of connection, DNA connection

18 with that?

19 THE WITNESS: Your Honour, no. They all appear -- these cases

20 appear on the ICMP -- ICMP update, so -- and what appears on this list

21 are Srebrenica-related victims. So because we have the names of these

22 victims, they are on ICRC missing list and we can say they are

23 Srebrenica-related victims. That's why we have included those names in

24 total calculation. But no connections we have because these are all, I

25 would say, primary graves or surface remains which we don't have any

Page 33513

1 connections between each other established.

2 JUDGE KWON: The only reason they are included in this number is

3 that they are included in the missing list?

4 THE WITNESS: Yes, indeed. And they also appears in the ICMP

5 list which is related to Srebrenica cases.

6 JUDGE KWON: Thank you.

7 MS. SOLJAN:

8 Q. Mr. Janc, why did you and your analysis of the ICMP data include

9 grave sites such as Bljeceva 1 to 3, Budak 1 and 2, Sandici and others?

10 A. Because now we have enough and sufficient information that these

11 graves are indeed Srebrenica-related cases or graves, so individuals

12 coming out from these graves have been identified and can be found on

13 ICRC missing list. As well, we have much more documents and

14 documentation related to these graves.

15 Q. And what is the documentation related to these graves that you

16 are referring to?

17 A. I'm referring to the documentation which we received from the BH

18 authorities regarding the exhumations of these graves.

19 Q. Okay. Very briefly, Mr. Janc, could you summarise the

20 conclusions of your report regarding the total numbers of Srebrenica

21 victims identified via DNA analysis on surface remains?

22 A. Yes. The findings regarding surface remains shows that in total

23 we have now 648 individuals identified whose remains were found on the

24 ground or on the surface. So it is part of Annex B of my report where

25 you can find the description how did I find these numbers and what are

Page 33514

1 the conclusions, so ...

2 MS. SOLJAN: Thank you. Can we have Exhibit 3609, please. And

3 page 2, please.

4 Q. Mr. Janc, do you recognise this document?

5 A. Yes.

6 Q. Can you tell us what it is, please?

7 A. This is information which was sent to us by the BiH Commission on

8 Missing Persons in the beginning of 2008 and includes the total number of

9 the individuals collected on the ground, on the surface. So it is the

10 information related to the surface remains collected between 1996 and

11 2007.

12 MS. SOLJAN: If can we go to the next page, please. And if we

13 can just zoom in on that.

14 Q. Mr. Janc, did you use this type of information?

15 A. Yes.

16 Q. How?

17 A. I have been using this spreadsheet or these spreadsheets which

18 were attached to the report which were -- or to the information which we

19 have just seen before. I've used it -- I've been using this a lot. So

20 because what you have on these spreadsheets are the locations and site

21 codes which were assigned to the surface remains during the collection.

22 So, for example, you have second column in this spreadsheet where it says

23 when the exhumation was conducted. Then you have the location where it

24 was conducted. The municipality is the fourth row, and then you have the

25 site code. And these codes are very important because you can find in

Page 33515

1 the ICMP list these codes when they are referring to particular

2 individual which was identified.

3 So when I was making analysis regarding the surface remains, I

4 was using this spreadsheet as a basis for my conclusions that particular

5 individuals were found on the ground.

6 MS. SOLJAN: Can we have Exhibit 4501, please.

7 Q. What is this document, Mr. Janc?

8 A. This document is similar than the one we have seen before, but

9 this is related to the exhumations conducted in 2008. So because at the

10 beginning of 2008 we did not receive the data for the current year

11 because the exhumations were going on, so we did receive this piece of

12 information at the beginning of this year, so it relates to the

13 exhumations conducted regarding the Srebrenica events in 2008. And you

14 don't see just surface remains related exhumations. You can also find

15 the mass graves exhumations which you can see from the column where it

16 says the type of the grave, which says "vrsta grobnice." So when it says

17 "povrsinski," it means surface, and then you have down there "sekundarna"

18 MG [indiscernible], that means secondary mass grave.

19 Q. And Mr. Janc, beyond analysing the ICMP data for the numbers of

20 surface remains, were you able to draw any other conclusions concerning

21 surface remains in your report?

22 A. I don't understand your question.

23 Q. Beyond the numbers, do you draw any other conclusions at Annex B

24 of your report?

25 MS. SOLJAN: Perhaps I'll simplify it. If we can have

Page 33516

1 Exhibit 3901. Last page of this exhibit, please.

2 Q. Can you tell us what this is, Mr. Janc?

3 A. Yes. This is the map which was prepared by the BiH commission on

4 missing person, and represent the distribution of the surface remains

5 found between 1996 and 1998 in the area stretching south from the

6 Potocari up to the north, so where the column was passing in 1995.

7 Q. Okay.

8 A. So and I have used or reviewing -- I was reviewing this map and

9 also prepared the similar -- the similar conclusions regarding these

10 three wider areas, so you can find in my report how many individuals have

11 been found in different areas, so -- and I named them. You can see here

12 on the south, this Pobuda area, where the most of them have been found.

13 Then you have south-west of Zvornik, you have Snagovo area. And then you

14 have north-west of Zvornik, Baljkovica area. So these are three main

15 areas which are presented in my report where the surface remains have

16 been found.

17 Beside that you have also other areas because you can see on this

18 map towards -- to the left where Vlasenica is, you also see some dots, so

19 these are also surface remains and victims related to Srebrenica which

20 were found in the other areas which are outside these three main areas.

21 And I also included those from these places under the section "Other

22 areas."

23 Q. Thank you. Mr. Janc, are you aware of any errors or typos in

24 Annex B of your report?

25 MS. SOLJAN: And this is 4490, page 44, English. Page 63, B/C/S.

Page 33517

1 THE WITNESS: Yes, indeed. You have in second paragraph, second

2 line, the number 952. The correct number should be 957, as it is down in

3 footnote number 2 where you have -- where you can see number 957. So

4 this is total number of the surface remains cases collected on the ground

5 so far.

6 And also there is a mistake in the fourth line of the same

7 paragraph where it says "See Annexure B." It should be, See confidential

8 Annex D.

9 MS. SOLJAN: Thank you.

10 JUDGE AGIUS: It's time for the break. How much more do you

11 have, Ms. Soljan?

12 MS. SOLJAN: About five more questions.

13 JUDGE AGIUS: Five more questions. We'll have the break now.

14 We'll have a 25-minute break. Thank you.

15 --- Recess taken at 10.31 a.m.

16 --- On resuming at 11.01 a.m.

17 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, let's continue, Ms. Soljan. Thank you.

18 MS. SOLJAN: Thank you, Your Honour.

19 Q. Mr. Janc, at page 5 of your report, footnote 5, you note that the

20 number of individuals identified as surface remains represents only

21 profiles matched to missing persons. Now, why for surface remains did

22 you count only the named profiles and not the unnamed profiles?

23 A. Yes, I did not include the unnamed individuals which were found

24 on the surface because of the reason I already explained before, so I was

25 not that confident to include them or to consider them as

Page 33518

1 Srebrenica-related victims. Because when these remains were collected on

2 the ground, within these areas we have also victims from the other

3 periods, not only 1995 or Srebrenica-related victims. So within these

4 areas, the surface remains of the other individuals which are not related

5 to Srebrenica events have also been collected.

6 So until we have the name of the person which was found on the

7 ground and we see that it is -- he is on the ICRC missing list, until

8 that time we cannot include this particular person on to the total

9 counting, so that's why I did not include those. And also at the time

10 when I was preparing this report, I was not in possession of those unique

11 profiles for the surface remains. So in the meantime, we received from

12 the ICMP unique profiles at least for the surface remains, and I can say

13 there is 25 individuals on those -- on their list which are related to

14 the surface remains.

15 Q. But would you be able to say whether they are Srebrenica related

16 or not? Would you add them to your count of 648?

17 A. No. That's what exactly what I was just explaining, and why not.

18 So we have those 25 individuals which we cannot say that they are

19 Srebrenica related.

20 Q. Okay.

21 MS. SOLJAN: Can we go to Exhibit 4490, page 41 English, page 60

22 B/C/S, please. The ERN is X0194271 in the English version.

23 Q. Mr. Janc, can you tell us what this table represents?

24 A. This table represents the calculation of total numbers of the

25 individuals so far identified from different mass graves and secondary --

Page 33519

1 primary and secondary mass graves which are related to particular

2 execution point.

3 Q. Okay. And the Defence counsel has been kind enough to point out

4 an error in the spreadsheet. Could you tell us what that error is,

5 please?

6 A. Yes, indeed. It is error regarding Kravica execution point. The

7 total number is 1.319. And we can say that this total number cannot be

8 attributed -- all of them cannot be attributed to Kravica killing.

9 Q. Can you describe in a little more detail what you mean by that?

10 A. Yes. I have prepared a corrigendum to this mistake and I have

11 explained it there.

12 MS. SOLJAN: Okay. Can we go to Exhibit 4492, please.

13 Q. Sir, can you briefly summarise --

14 A. Yes.

15 Q. -- the contents of your corrigendum?

16 A. In this corrigendum, you can see the clarifications I have made

17 regarding particularly to Kravica execution site that not all of the

18 individuals can be attributed to this execution point for various

19 reasons. Because we have evidence now or information regarding the grave

20 L, which is part of the Glogova 1 grave where 12 individuals have been

21 identified. We know their names, and for ten of them we know where they

22 are coming from. So they were returned back from Serbia on 20, 24 and

23 26 of July in 1995. And then obviously somebody executed at this point

24 in Glogova. So in this grave you have these 12 individuals. For two of

25 them, I was not able to establish where those two individuals are coming

Page 33520

1 from.

2 So then beside that we have evidence and information that in

3 Glogova graves are also the individuals which are collected from inside

4 and around Bratunac school. Some individuals from Potocari. Some of

5 them from Konjevic Polje and some of them from the Konjevic

6 Polje-Bratunac road. So the total number is not correct. They are all

7 not coming from Kravica execution point.

8 Q. Did you need to clarify anything else regarding the final table

9 of your Annex A?

10 A. Yes, you can see, for example, for Branjevo I have clarified this

11 is minor clarification. Branjevo execution point should be written as

12 Branjevo/Pilica, because we know at Branjevo and related secondary graves

13 there are victims which were killed in these two execution sites.

14 Q. Based on your analysis of DNA identifications found in the

15 March 2009 ICMP update, what is the current total number of Srebrenica

16 victims in both graves and surface remains?

17 A. It is 6.006 individuals.

18 Q. Do you know whether any new exhumations are expected to take

19 place in the coming times?

20 A. Yes, indeed. I was just recently in contact with the BiH

21 authorities. Actually, with the members of the Commission for Missing

22 Persons, and they have informed me that they are planning exhumation in

23 Mrsici village, which is close to Vlasenica, so where they have

24 indications that some 15 to 20 bodies are buried. According to them,

25 those are Srebrenica victims but we'll know for the fact when those

Page 33521

1 individuals are exhumed.

2 Then the other exhumation which is planned by them is going on

3 in -- close to Bisina, actually it is in Bisina area, there is a cave

4 inside which many of the individuals might be. So they have already went

5 into -- they have already gone into this cave. Inside they have found

6 some pieces of bones. They have taken them out, but because of the

7 unexploded devices inside, they are not able to proceed at this moment.

8 They are waiting for the experts to come to clean this area first and

9 then they will proceed with the exhumation.

10 Q. Are you aware of any other exhumations?

11 A. No, those are three mains, although we have pointed out to them

12 one additional possible place in Bisina where the grave might be. So

13 they are in process to testing this area, but I have no information

14 regarding that.

15 Q. And at this time have all the known secondary graves been

16 exhumed, secondary mass graves?

17 A. No, not yet. There is Cancari Road 1 which is still unexhumed.

18 Q. Thank you, Mr. Janc.

19 MS. SOLJAN: I have no more questions, Your Honours.

20 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, thank you.

21 JUDGE KWON: If I go back to that Glogova site. Mr. Janc said

22 that he knows that individuals from Bratunac or Konjevic Polje,

23 et cetera, were gathered and moved to Glogova. How do you know that?

24 THE WITNESS: Your Honour, these are conclusions based on the

25 testimonies and statements given by the people who were involved in these

Page 33522

1 proceedings, and they were also testifying here. And I have listed these

2 names and their protected numbers regarding these events, what they were

3 testifying about.

4 JUDGE KWON: So your conclusion is that although they are not --

5 they should not be included in Kravica killing but they should be

6 included in Srebrenica killing overall?

7 THE WITNESS: Yes, indeed. That's the conclusion.

8 JUDGE KWON: Thank you.

9 JUDGE AGIUS: I thank you, Judge Kwon, and I thank you,

10 Ms. Soljan.

11 Ms. Tapuskovic.

12 Let me first try and see what to expect. How long do you think

13 you will need for your cross-examination, Ms. Tapuskovic?

14 MS. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I don't think I

15 will finish today.

16 JUDGE AGIUS: I see. Okay. Thank you.

17 And Mr. Ostojic.

18 MR. OSTOJIC: One hour, Mr. President, approximately.

19 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. And Ms. Nikolic or Mr. Bourgon.

20 MR. BOURGON: 15 minutes, if any, Mr. President, on Monday.

21 Thank you.

22 JUDGE AGIUS: Mr. Lazarevic.

23 MR. LAZAREVIC: As things stand now, it's, like, one hour and a

24 half, maybe a bit more.

25 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. Thank you.

Page 33523

1 Madam Fauveau.

2 MS. FAUVEAU: [Interpretation] Very probably nothing. Maybe five

3 minutes.

4 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you.

5 Mr. Josse?

6 MR. JOSSE: Needless to say, nothing.

7 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you, Mr. Haynes?

8 MR. HAYNES: I'd like to reserve a small portion of time on

9 Monday.

10 JUDGE AGIUS: All right. So there is a possibility we finish on

11 Monday. There is a small possibility that we will finish on Monday. In

12 any case you are always available, Mr. Janc, aren't you?

13 THE WITNESS: Yes, I am.

14 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you.

15 Ms. Tapuskovic, go ahead.

16 MS. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.

17 Cross-examination by Ms. Tapuskovic:

18 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Janc, we have already met. It was on

19 16 April this year.

20 A. Yes, indeed.

21 Q. On that occasion we discussed some issues contained in your

22 report and you provided me with explanations?

23 A. Correct.

24 Q. Those clarifications were recorded in an informative report that

25 the Prosecution made available to the Defence teams; correct?

Page 33524

1 A. Yes, correct.

2 Q. Thank you. I would like to make just one correction, perhaps.

3 On the first day of your direct examination, it's on transcript 33381 in

4 line 30, you said that Annex C is not confidential, in fact you said

5 Annex D was not confidential, and Annex C was confidential. Can I just

6 correct this to say that only Annex D of your report is confidential?

7 A. Yes, correct. Only the Annex D is confidential.

8 Q. Thank you. You said that one of your main sources for your

9 summary was the ICMP list from March this year. On that list, as far as

10 the Defence is able to see, there are 10.626 entries, some of them main

11 cases, some of them re-associations; correct?

12 A. Correct.

13 Q. Thank you. On page 2 of your summary when you were explaining

14 the number of identified persons through DNA analysis, you said we had at

15 least 5.358 identified persons. Tell me, what does this mean "at least"?

16 A. Yeah, what is meant is that there are still exhumations going on

17 and identifications going on so -- but what do we have in the ICMP update

18 which was provided to us is 5.358. This is the correct number and the

19 exact number, so what I meant with "at least" is probably, you know, I

20 have had in mind that there would be additional exhumations and that --

21 additional identifications, and that's what is -- what was meant by that.

22 Q. Thank you. We will now move on to the unique DNA profiles, that

23 is, your statement that you have established the existence of 304 unique

24 DNA profiles. But you told us today that you put in your summary only

25 294 DNA profiles; correct?

Page 33525

1 A. Correct.

2 Q. You also said that nine of the differences appear in ten

3 profiles, you said that nine appear in the grave --

4 THE INTERPRETER: Could counsel please repeat the grave. The

5 first grave.

6 JUDGE AGIUS: Ms. Tapuskovic, the interpreters didn't catch the

7 name of the first grave. In any case, we don't have anything in the

8 transcript, so you need to repeat them all if you said more than one, you

9 mentioned more than one. What we have is: "You also said that nine of

10 the difference," and there is a mistake here or something missing,

11 "appear in 10 profiles, you said that nine appear in the grave," you need

12 to correct that by repeating the name or names that you mentioned,

13 please.

14 MS. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour, I'll repeat

15 the whole question.

16 Q. Mr. Janc, you said that out of those ten cases looks like the

17 difference of between 304 DNA profiles, and 294 demonstrated DNA

18 profiles, nine cases referred to the grave Bljeceva 1, and one to the

19 grave Liplje 8?

20 A. Yes, correct.

21 Q. You told us today that for Bljeceva as a grave, you have no

22 information that it is related to any other grave. However, in it were

23 also bodies from 1992?

24 A. No, I was telling that for Bljeceva grave you have information

25 that it is a mixed grave. That inside this grave there are also

Page 33526

1 individuals from the other incidents from 1992.

2 Q. Thank you. Now, tell me, how many such persons are buried in

3 that grave, do you know the number? Or is it these nine, namely, the

4 difference between the unique DNA profiles? Are these the persons buried

5 in that grave who died earlier?

6 A. According to my information, it is - I will give you a rough

7 estimate - around 50 of those individuals found in this grave which are

8 not -- which are related to the 1992 incident.

9 Q. Thank you. In your summary, but also in the Manning summary,

10 Liplje 8 grave appears. The Manning summary is marked P2993, and it is

11 mentioned that also one body was found. However, for that body you had

12 no information about DNA analysis. Tell me then, why is the grave Liplje

13 8 again referred to in your report when it concerns only one body and

14 there is no DNA profile and it is impossible to link it with the list of

15 missing persons?

16 A. That's because it's simply I did not want to change the

17 Dean Manning's report in any sense, and this Liplje grave 8 is considered

18 to be a grave with one individual inside, but we don't have sufficient

19 information about him. So if this is the individual which is on this

20 unique DNA profiles list with Liplje 8 markings, I don't know. I can't

21 connect this individual with this particular grave.

22 Q. So you cannot say about that person that it is Srebrenica

23 related?

24 A. Which person do you mean?

25 Q. The one in the Liplje 8 grave.

Page 33527

1 A. Yes, you are right.

2 Q. Thank you. Can you tell us, Mr. Janc, on several occasions

3 during your direct examination you used that term, Srebrenica related.

4 Can you tell us what do you understand that term, Srebrenica related, to

5 mean?

6 A. It means the individuals, the victims which were killed or which

7 have died after the events of Srebrenica in 1995, so after they took over

8 the Srebrenica enclave.

9 Q. Thank you. In response to a question by my learned friend you

10 gave us an explanation regarding the status of the number of victims

11 related to Kravica, and you said you modified it in your corrigendum

12 Exhibit 4492.

13 Can we agree that when we read this corrigendum of yours, we find

14 that the total number is over 100 persons, persons who are included in

15 your count of 1.319 persons who met their death at Kravica and who,

16 according to your corrigendum, cannot be associated with the incident in

17 Kravica in July 1995?

18 A. Yes, correct.

19 MS. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] May I now call up in e-court

20 1D1391.

21 Q. Mr. Janc, here we have a report that the Defence received on the

22 27th of April this year from the OTP.

23 MS. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Can we zoom in a little so that

24 the witness can see better.

25 Q. Mr. Janc, are you familiar with this report?

Page 33528

1 A. Yes.

2 Q. Thank you.

3 MS. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Can we now move on to page 2,

4 item 4, that is bullet 4. And zoom in a little.

5 Q. I will read out to you part of this point which reads:

6 "[In English] Mr. Janc noted that a number of witness statements

7 he has reviewed showed that at least ten individuals identified via DNA

8 analysis from the Cerska mass grave may have been captured after 13 July

9 1995, in some cases as late as 17 of July. These men have case IDs:

10 [Interpretation] Cerska 20, Cerska 30, Cerska 32, Cerska 36, Cerska 51,

11 Cerska 65, Cerska 66, Cerska 83, Cerska 101, and Cerska 116."

12 Mr. Janc, you reviewed the report --

13 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Ms. Soljan.

14 MS. SOLJAN: Your Honours, I just want to make clear on the

15 record I did not lead evidence regarding this particular issue because we

16 were given the understanding that various Defence counsel were going to

17 be objecting to it being led. So just to make clear for the record.

18 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay, thank you.

19 MS. SOLJAN: But we have no objection to it coming in, obviously.

20 JUDGE AGIUS: Yeah, I mean, especially if you knew beforehand

21 that this is something that they were going to deal with, and it is

22 important so there's no question about it.

23 Yes, Ms. Tapuskovic, please go ahead.

24 MS. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you very much.

25 Your Honours, let me just check if all the numbers have been recorded in

Page 33529

1 the transcript. Yes.

2 Q. Mr. Janc, I presume that you have read Mr. Haglund's report from

3 my learned friends, that's Exhibit P611, which refers to the Cerska

4 grave?

5 A. Yes, I did.

6 Q. On page of this exhibit, which we are not going to call up, that

7 ends with the digit 3698, he mentioned two more persons, that is,

8 Cerska 12 and Cerska 82 who had been seen on the 16th and 17th of July

9 alive. Are you aware of this piece of information?

10 A. Not from the top of my head, but I think I do remember reading

11 this, yes.

12 Q. Do you recall that Mr. Haglund also stated that all the

13 individuals found in the Cerska grave had been executed above or next to

14 the very grave and that they had all been buried on the same day?

15 A. Yes, I do remember that.

16 Q. Can you then tell me how do you explain the difference that 10,

17 and the Defence claims 12, persons in the Cerska grave were most probably

18 killed much later than the 13th of July, 1995, when, according to the OTP

19 and the indictment, approximately 150 people were killed in the afternoon

20 of that day?

21 A. That means that these individuals were killed later, not on 13,

22 or that the Cerska killing or execution took place later.

23 Q. Thank you. But let me just remind you, on page 33392, during

24 your examination-in-chief, you stated that Cerska was the primary

25 undisturbed grave; is that correct?

Page 33530

1 A. Yes, that's correct.

2 Q. You also mentioned today when you spoke about Kravica that

3 there's a number that cannot be included into the number of 1.319 people.

4 However, you confirm now that a certain number of individuals cannot be

5 included in the number relating to Bljeceva as well. And then again, you

6 just now confirmed that a certain number of individuals cannot be counted

7 as being executed as described in the indictment and that actually they

8 were killed probably after the 13th, and were buried in a primary

9 undisturbed grave.

10 How can you then reconcile your statement that the number of

11 identified persons contained in the ICMP updated list represents a true

12 reflection of the events that took place on the ground, and the

13 executions that took place within the intervals as described in Manning's

14 and your summary?

15 A. I think I have never said something like that, that ICMP updated

16 list represent a true reflection of the events that took place on the

17 ground. So what is in my report and what I'm calculating are the numbers

18 of individuals which are on that list, and I'm putting these numbers into

19 my report. So ICMP update doesn't represent anything like that. It is

20 just the list with the identifications. And to make sense of it, you

21 have to make an analysis, and to put together the numbers.

22 You have mentioned, for example, Bljeceva grave. What I'm

23 calculating in my total number regarding Bljeceva 1, which is mixed

24 grave, are only individuals which are Srebrenica-related individuals.

25 I'm not counting the others, which are coming from the other incident.

Page 33531

1 What I'm counting for Cerska are the individuals which were

2 identified from this grave. It has nothing to do with the actual date of

3 execution.

4 Q. Tell me, Mr. Parsons [as interpreted], do you have any indication

5 that with regard to some other graves that you have investigated -- I'm

6 sorry, Mr. Janc, the graves that you have investigated, especially those

7 that -- this is this new map, Exhibit P4224 [as interpreted], that you

8 marked them as new graves. Do you have any indication that there were

9 other such graves that opens up a possibility for the secondary graves to

10 be treated in a different way, i.e., that they are perhaps primary graves

11 for certain individuals who are buried there?

12 A. No, I have no such information.

13 Q. Thank you. Let us now move to a different topic.

14 MS. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I think there is a

15 mistake in the exhibit number recorded on page 47, line 6. It should be

16 Exhibit 4524. Thank you.

17 Q. During your examination-in-chief on 33378 page, lines 13 to 16,

18 you said that the third goal of your summary was to establish DNA

19 connections. In his summary, P22 -- 2993, Manning didn't speak at all

20 about DNA connections, he just mentioned them.

21 A. Would you like me to comment on that?

22 Q. Yes, please.

23 A. Yes, he was aware of these connections because I was talking to

24 him also, and he did want to include those connections into his report,

25 but due to lack of time, because in order to do that you need a lot of

Page 33532

1 time. It's not a work for one day or a week. It's more the work for a

2 month. So I think that was the reason -- the main reason why he did not

3 include this type of information into his report.

4 Q. Thank you. On page 5 of your summary, when you explained Annex A

5 you mentioned the existence of DNA connections between disturbed

6 primary -- primary and secondary, and secondary and secondary; is that

7 correct?

8 A. Correct.

9 Q. Can you tell us, Mr. Janc, where did you make reference of the

10 connection between a primary and a primary grave?

11 A. Yes, I can, and perhaps we can get a chart on the screen and I

12 can show you. It would be easier. DNA connection chart, if possible.

13 JUDGE KWON: Annex C?

14 THE WITNESS: Annex C, yes.

15 MS. SOLJAN: This is page 65 of 4490.

16 MS. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] I'm grateful to my learned

17 colleague.

18 Q. Tell us now, Mr. Janc.

19 A. Yes. You can see the connection between Glogova 1 and Glogova 2

20 primary graves, so that's what I meant. Not one connection, but six

21 connections, six cases between these two primary disturbed graves. And

22 beside that, okay, but this is not included in my chart, no, beside it we

23 have Ravnice 1 and Ravnice 2 example, but this is not disturbed grave so

24 that's I not include it into the chart. So this is the case -- there are

25 the cases I was talking about, Glogova 1 and Glogova 2.

Page 33533

1 Q. Mr. Janc, we have heard here from the forensic expert Jose

2 Baraybar who in his report, P560, he described Glogova jedina [as

3 interpreted] and Glogova 2. Yesterday you told us that you had visited

4 the area in October 2007, and I suppose that you visited that grave as

5 well; is that correct?

6 A. That's correct, yes.

7 Q. According to the description from Baraybar's report, it is

8 obvious that Glogova 1 is to the south and Glogova 2 is to the north; is

9 that right?

10 A. Yes, there is a road in between those two; so one is on the

11 left-hand side, the other one opposite. Which is south, which is north,

12 I don't know.

13 Q. And do you know which of the two graves was first examined?

14 A. I would say number 2, Glogova 2, but not in its entirety.

15 Glogova 2, we have had several exhumations before in 1990s, and then I

16 think in 2000 also, and then it was Glogova 1 exhumed later on. But I

17 can consult my report, so it's written here. Glogova 1 in 2000 and

18 Glogova 2 in 1999, so that's what I was telling you. So Glogova 1 was

19 before Glogova 2. Actually, opposite.

20 Q. These -- both graves are considered as primary disturbed graves;

21 is that correct?

22 A. Yes, in general because, for example, in Glogova 1 and also in

23 Glogova 2 we have several sub-graves, but for Glogova 1 you have at least

24 two, I'm sure about two sub-graves which are marked as L and E, which are

25 not disturbed, which are intact, so not everything was disturbed.

Page 33534

1 Q. On page 6 of your report, of your summary, there is mention of

2 Glogova mass graves and it says that Glogova 1 and Glogova 2 were primary

3 disturbed mass graves. If you said that these two graves are divided

4 only by a narrow road, how is it possible -- or separated by a narrow

5 road, how is it possible for these graves to be treated in these six

6 cases where, according to you, there exists DNA connection? And how is

7 it possible that they were treated as primary graves? One grave for one

8 part of the body can only be a primary and for another part of the body

9 can only be a secondary grave.

10 A. Not necessarily. Primary grave means that the bodies have been

11 initially buried at that location, which doesn't mean that the entire

12 bodies were buried at one location.

13 For example, part of the body might be destroyed in a way during

14 the burial process, and part of the body will be then buried in one

15 place, the other part will be in the other. And that's explanation. So

16 it is possible that you have a part of the body in two different primary

17 graves. Primary just mean that the bodies were initially buried there.

18 So but in what shape, that's different story then.

19 MS. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Can we now have Exhibit P4490,

20 that is your summary, Mr. Janc. And can we move to the table that begins

21 on page 36, and it ends with ERN number 4271.

22 Q. As we can see everything here is marked in colour red, which is

23 something new, as opposed to what Mr. Manning did in his summary; is that

24 right?

25 A. Yes, that's right.

Page 33535

1 Q. In column 1 you have identified five massive -- mass graves,

2 Kravica, Orahovac, Petkovci, Kozluk, and Branjevo, which also include the

3 executions carried out in Pilica; is that correct?

4 A. Yes, these are execution sites.

5 Q. In the second column, you show the locations of primary burials

6 and secondary burials of the victims, and some entries appear in

7 boldface, and some are in normal font.

8 If we look at the example of Kravica, for instance, why is

9 Ravnice 1 in boldface and Ravnice 2 isn't?

10 A. Yes, what you can see in bold text, these are exhumations

11 conducted by the ICTY. What is not, these were exhumations conducted by

12 the BiH authorities, and Ravnice 2 is one of such examples.

13 Q. Very well. But you did not show in the table, the possible DNA

14 connections between these graves?

15 A. No, not in this spreadsheet or this table, no.

16 Q. Right. Of these graves that we have just looked at, if we begin

17 with Kravica, which of those are primary graves and which are secondary

18 graves?

19 A. Primary graves are Glogova 1, Glogova 2, Ravnice 1, and

20 Ravnice 2. The others are secondary graves.

21 Q. What about Orahovac?

22 A. Orahovac 1 and Orahovac 2 are primary graves. The others are

23 secondary to it.

24 Q. And Petkovci?

25 A. It's just down near Petkovci, it's primary. The others are

Page 33536

1 secondary to it.

2 Q. What about Kozluk?

3 A. Kozluk, it's primary. The others are -- Cancari Roads are

4 secondary to it.

5 Q. And Branjevo, I suppose only the Pilica farm is primary, all the

6 rest are secondary; is that correct?

7 A. Yes, and Branjevo Military Farm is primary grave, the others are

8 secondary.

9 MS. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.

10 Since we still have your summary on the screen, can we now move

11 to page 6 of the Annex A. It end with the ERN number 4241.

12 Q. Mr. Janc, you can see here towards the bottom of the page that

13 Glogova 2 grave is mentioned, and if we move to the next page, which is

14 ERN 4242, we can see a table that refers to Glogova 2, and beneath the

15 table in red face we can see the analysis of the DNA connections

16 referring to Glogova 2; is that correct?

17 A. Yes, that's correct.

18 Q. In the penultimate line of that red passage, it says that between

19 Bljeceva 2 and of course between Glogova 2 there exists 24 DNA

20 connections. Can you see that?

21 A. Yes, I can see that. Yeah, I can see that, that Bljeceva dva or

22 second -- Bljeceva 2, we have 24 cases or connections between Glogova 2

23 and Bljeceva 2, yes.

24 MS. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] If we move to page 27 now of

25 your summary, which ends with ERN number 4262.

Page 33537

1 Q. At the very top do you see, Mr. Janc, the table relating to

2 Bljeceva 2 and the number of persons identified which says 80?

3 A. Yes, I see that.

4 Q. In this red passage, the note written in red, you can see that

5 there is a DNA connection between Glogova 2 and Bljeceva 2 in 24 cases;

6 is that correct?

7 A. Yes, that's correct.

8 MS. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Let us now look at another

9 similar example, and for that purpose let us move to page 18 of your

10 summary. Actually, page 18 of Annex 2 to your summary. ERN number 4253.

11 Q. We are talking about Hodzici 7 grave which has been renamed

12 Snagovo 2; is that correct?

13 A. Yes, correct.

14 Q. The renaming of the grave has been done by the local BiH

15 authorities; is that right?

16 A. Yes, that's right.

17 Q. Thank you. If we look at the table for Hodzici 7 as a secondary

18 mass grave, we can see that there are DNA connections established in

19 19 cases between Orahovac 2 -- or, rather, Lazete 2 graves. This is also

20 mentioned in the red passage underneath the table that depicts Hodzici 7?

21 A. Yes, correct.

22 Q. Thank you. If we then look on page 3 of Annex A of your summary,

23 that's 4238 of your summary, and then we move on to the next page 4239,

24 we'll see that in the addition in red type, DNA connection is mentioned

25 with Hodzici Road 7 in 19 cases?

Page 33538

1 A. Yes, correct.

2 Q. Thank you. I have given you these two examples of DNA

3 connections that the Defence chose in preparation for this

4 cross-examination. If we go back to grave Glogova 2 and Bljeceva 2, we

5 will see how many DNA connections there were. There were 24.

6 If you say in your summary that in Bljeceva 80 bodies were

7 identified from the secondary grave Bljeceva 2, how can you then conclude

8 that all of these 80 bodies identified in Bljeceva 2 are related to

9 Glogova 2? I repeat, you have only 24 DNA connections.

10 A. All these 80 bodies are not related to Glogova 2. That's not

11 what I'm saying.

12 MS. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Can we show again on the screen

13 page 4262. That's the ERN number of the page in Annex A of your summary

14 speaking of Bljeceva 2.

15 Q. Do you see the table, Mr. Janc? In red type we see the number of

16 80 individuals, and if we interpret your summary correctly, this is the

17 updated number of identified persons in that grave?

18 A. Yes. Yes, 80 of them have been identified so far.

19 Q. Yes. Right. When I examined you on the table on pages 36 and 37

20 of your summary, you told me which were the primary and which were the

21 secondary graves. It is clear from that table that Bljeceva is a

22 secondary grave, compared to Glogova 2 which is a primary grave.

23 MS. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Can we now go back to page 36

24 and 37 of the summary. And we can look at the table dealing with the

25 victims from Kravica.

Page 33539

1 Q. As you can see in that table it says that Glogova 1 and Glogova 2

2 are the primary graves for Kravica, whereas Bljeceva 1, 2, and 3 are

3 secondary graves. I'm now asking you, in fact I'm telling you, the

4 Defence accepts that in these 24 cases where you found DNA connections

5 between Bljeceva 1 and Glogova 2, the bodies were most probably brought

6 from Glogova, but how do you say for the remaining bodies, up to 80, that

7 they also originate from Glogova 2 if you have found no connection? In

8 fact, you are saying that they come from Kravica?

9 JUDGE KWON: [Microphone not activated] If somebody could turn off

10 their microphone.

11 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, I see --

12 JUDGE KWON: Is that your case -- is it your case that if a body

13 is moved from one side to another side, that the remains of that body

14 should be found in both places? Is it your case?

15 MS. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, that depends on

16 whether the whole body was transferred or not. It is our Defence case

17 that we can treat Bljeceva 2 as a secondary grave only as far as those

18 24 DNA connections are concerned. In their cases we have an established

19 connection with Glogova 2. Concerning other individuals in Bljeceva 2,

20 we have 80 of them identified, the Defence claims that Bljeceva dva is

21 the primary grave for these bodies and most probably they met their death

22 in some other way, to be established how later, and they were buried in

23 that grave. But we have no connection between these bodies and any other

24 grave.

25 JUDGE KWON: I will leave it to the witness to deal with it. Or

Page 33540

1 Ms. Soljan, do you have something to say?

2 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, I had noticed Ms. Soljan standing before you

3 spoke. Yes.

4 MS. SOLJAN: I was just going to make a comment at the time that

5 the question was being asked, that this was misstating the evidence that

6 Mr. Janc has so far provided. That's where I'll stand for now.

7 JUDGE AGIUS: Let's proceed, Ms. Tapuskovic, please.

8 JUDGE KWON: Or let the witness answer the question.

9 JUDGE AGIUS: Mr. Janc, you've heard the exchange, particularly

10 the exchange between Judge Kwon and Ms. Tapuskovic, do you have a

11 contribution to make?

12 THE WITNESS: Yes.

13 JUDGE AGIUS: Then go ahead, please.

14 THE WITNESS: First of all, we have to distinguish between number

15 of individuals which are identified and included in my report, which is

16 for this particular grave 80 individuals, and between the section when

17 I'm talking about the DNA connections. Why? Because you can see, for

18 example, as you have mentioned, between Glogova 2 and Bljeceva 2 we have

19 24 cases, but this doesn't mean that these 24 cases are part of the

20 80 individuals which you can see here. Why? Because what I was counting

21 were main cases, main cases. So it is possible that those main cases for

22 24 connections are in Glogova grave. Re-associations to these main

23 cases, which you have 24 of them, are in Bljeceva 2.

24 So you have connection between these graves. But if you have

25 only re-association case in Bljeceva 2, this individual is not counted in

Page 33541

1 the total number of the individuals found in this grave. That's what I

2 have explained, that I was counting all only main cases in order to avoid

3 duplication. But it was different with DNA connections. Number of

4 individuals identified in certain location has nothing to do with DNA

5 connections, so you can't put both together. You have to ask question

6 regarding DNA connections and you cannot just easily compare with the

7 number of the individuals which are counted in my report.

8 JUDGE KWON: And the DNA connections you are referring to means

9 the connections between the grave-site, not the individuals?

10 THE WITNESS: Your Honour, I'm talk about the connection between

11 the individuals. So this, what means, it is that we have 24 cases, for

12 example, between Glogova 2 and Bljeceva 2 where we have connection

13 between the individual, so body parts of one individual have been found

14 on both places. So that's ...

15 JUDGE KWON: Okay. Let's move on.

16 MS. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.

17 Q. Regardless of this explanation you've just given me and the Trial

18 Chamber, I, Mr. Janc, have before me only your report, and I have to

19 interpret it somehow. In this case, I have 24 connections between

20 Bljeceva and Glogova, and that means that according to your table on

21 pages 36 and 37, these persons originate from Kravica; and in the second

22 case I have 19 connections between Lazete, that is, victims from

23 Orahovac, and Hodzici Road 7.

24 I'm asking you now this: We have 80 persons identified here and

25 24 connections. For Lazete and Hodzici Road 7 we have 111 identified

Page 33542

1 individuals, but 19 connections. In which way do the remaining persons,

2 that is, from 24 to 80 and from 19 to 111, how do you connect them to

3 Kravica and Orahovac respectively if you do not have a DNA connection?

4 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Ms. Soljan.

5 MS. SOLJAN: Your Honours, I just want to object to at least the

6 portion regarding Bljeceva and Glogova. This part has already been asked

7 and answered. There's also a misstatement regarding the Kravica, the

8 fact that the table represents that all these persons originate from

9 Kravica.

10 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes. Ms. Tapuskovic, what is your comment to that?

11 MS. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] If we could look at the table

12 which is still on the screen, we will see that it says 80 bodies were

13 identified in Bljeceva 2, and they were included in the total of 1.319

14 persons from Kravica.

15 JUDGE AGIUS: All right. Fair enough. Let Mr. Janc try to

16 answer that question.

17 Do you wish to have the question repeated, Mr. Janc, or are you

18 still familiar with it?

19 THE WITNESS: No, I'm still familiar with it. I can answer it,

20 Your Honour.

21 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay, then please proceed. Thank you.

22 MS. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation]

23 Q. The Defence has dealt in depth with the DNA connections and we

24 did some addition -- sorry, did I interrupt you in answering?

25 JUDGE AGIUS: Of course you did, but I think Mr. Janc now can

Page 33543

1 proceed with his answer. Go ahead, please.

2 THE WITNESS: Yes, thank you. Yes, I can explain to you. No, we

3 don't have all -- we don't have the connections for all the individuals

4 which were found in these particular mass graves established, so you will

5 never find in all such cases that between -- that for each and every

6 single -- every single individual you will get the DNA connection between

7 the primary and secondary grave but for how many we have, so we can

8 conclude based on that that these are secondary graves to Glogova primary

9 graves. And for Glogova primary graves we have connections to Kravica

10 warehouse.

11 MS. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation]

12 Q. Do you know, Mr. Janc, how many DNA connections did you make in

13 total in your whole summary?

14 A. I don't know for the exact number, but I think it is around

15 530 cases. Something like that.

16 Q. The Defence has made its own calculation and since on this table

17 on pages 36 and 37 there is a total number of identified persons in the

18 five largest sites of mass execution, and that is 4.931 individuals, the

19 Defence claimed that 4.400 -- sorry, 4.049 persons belong to identified

20 individuals and there are only 300 or so connections.

21 Can you stand behind the conclusion that for all these

22 identifications, grave by grave, as you listed them, in all cases where

23 there are secondary graves, these are indeed secondary graves, or in

24 certain cases some secondary graves are in fact primary graves for people

25 for whom we have no DNA connection?

Page 33544

1 A. No.

2 Q. Thank you. We'll now move on to a different topic. I'll ask

3 just one more --

4 JUDGE KWON: Can I ask you a basis in answering no to that

5 question. So you exclude the possibility in those secondary graves

6 there's no possibility for new bodies coming in, being mingled with the

7 bodies that were moved from the primary graves?

8 THE WITNESS: No, perhaps I did not understand this question

9 quite well.

10 JUDGE KWON: If I read Madam Tapuskovic --

11 THE WITNESS: [Overlapping speakers] ... it was quite a long

12 and --

13 JUDGE KWON: In certain cases some secondary graves are in fact

14 primary graves for people for whom we have no DNA connection. So if you

15 can answer that question again.

16 THE WITNESS: No, we don't have any indications that these are

17 primary graves. These are all secondary graves. So this is coming out

18 of the also exhumation reports I was reviewing where they making

19 conclusions that these are secondary graves. And also I just confirmed

20 then by -- in several cases by DNA connections. So ...

21 JUDGE KWON: So to conclude that your basis of knowledge is that

22 knowledge is based upon the result of various exhumation reports.

23 THE WITNESS: Yes. Exhumation reports, also photographs, autopsy

24 reports, everything. And you can see from these reports that you have

25 part of the bodies in these graves and they are considered as secondary

Page 33545

1 graves based on how the body parts are found, in what shape and

2 everything, so this is also concluded in these exhumation reports.

3 JUDGE KWON: Just to play devil's advocate, in the worst case we

4 can imagine, somebody might have brought some other corpses to that

5 secondary grave, do you exclude that possibility?

6 THE WITNESS: No, that possibility can't [Realtime transcript

7 read in error "can"] be excluded for sure. You have to -- in that case

8 you have to look into case-by-case sample to find out, but in general

9 that is probably not the case, but you cannot exclude this possibility,

10 yes.

11 JUDGE KWON: Thank you. Please proceed, Madam Tapuskovic.

12 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Ms. Soljan.

13 MS. SOLJAN: I apologise. I just want to point out that at line

14 25, 59, it should be "cannot be excluded," not "can be excluded." It was

15 a typo.

16 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. Thank you for that. Transcript will be

17 corrected accordingly.

18 Ms. Tapuskovic, please proceed.

19 MS. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.

20 Q. I have just one more question on the subject of DNA connections.

21 Did you establish, Mr. Janc, how many connections there are between

22 Glogova and Kravica?

23 A. Between Glogova and Kravica we have no DNA connections.

24 Q. Thank you. We'll now move on to a different topic that has been

25 dealt with by Ms. Soljan at length in direct examination, namely, Annex C

Page 33546

1 of your summary where you mention those so-called not counted connections

2 because you told us that Annex C relates only to DNA connections; right?

3 A. Yes, that's right.

4 Q. Those not counted DNA connections, as we established, are 40 in

5 total; do you agree?

6 A. Yes, I can agree with you, if you counted them. I don't know the

7 exact number but I can agree with you.

8 Q. On transcript page 33391 and 33392, you gave us the two main

9 reasons why you did not include them in your table, and one of them was

10 that these connections were illogical. I'd like to know, Mr. Janc, these

11 connections that were not counted, were they displayed in Annex A in the

12 tables you attached for every individual grave?

13 A. No, they are not displayed there. They are not listed there nor

14 you can find them in the DNA connection chart. So they were totally

15 excluded from any calculation. They were just added here that you have a

16 clear picture of what can be found on the ICMP update.

17 Q. Let me go back to one of those cases that you mentioned. Of

18 course we won't mention the name, it's protocol ID 10417/07. It's the

19 question of that tooth found outside the hangar in Kravica.

20 As you said, this tooth was given the status of main case; right?

21 A. Yes, you can see that from the ICMP update that this -- to this

22 case it was assigned main case, yes. It's a main case.

23 Q. Thank you. And ICMP linked this main case, this tooth, with two

24 re-association from Zeleni Jadar?

25 A. Yes, indeed. There is a match between this tooth and the body

Page 33547

1 parts which were found in Zeleni Jadar.

2 Q. Mr. Janc, can you tell me according to the protocol ID and the

3 case ID which shows also which body part it is, can you tell us which

4 body part of the person whose tooth was found outside the hangar in

5 Kravica was found in Zeleni Jadar?

6 A. No, you cannot say that based just on the site code.

7 Q. Would I be right in saying that the finding of that tooth outside

8 the warehouse in Kravica, which is treated as a main case, and the

9 finding of two body parts in Zeleni Jadar, and we don't know what those

10 body parts are, it could be fingers or toes, all we can conclude is that

11 the person under that protocol ID was injured, we cannot say that person

12 is deceased?

13 A. No, I don't agree with you. And I will explain that.

14 Q. Please do.

15 A. Based on the site code which you can see in the ICMP list, you

16 can't say which body part was found and how, or how -- how many pieces of

17 these body parts were found in the grave. In order to find out that you

18 have to consult the autopsy reports and photographs from the crime scene,

19 and also from the autopsy. So when you have all these together, then you

20 can see which body part was found and which was then tested.

21 For this particular case, I know that these were body parts found

22 in Zeleni Jadar were part of general bag [Realtime transcript read in

23 error "back"] which is marked usually at the beginning of exhumation and

24 where they put all the bones which are found in the grave and they don't

25 know, for example, where to place them. And usually they are putting

Page 33548

1 these bones in general bag, as they call it. And when these body parts

2 were then later exhumed by the pathologist, so the DNA sample was taken

3 from these particular bones, so and DNA match was established.

4 MS. SOLJAN: Your Honours shall where it says general back, it

5 should be bag, b-a-g.

6 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you. I think that's what we have in the

7 transcript if I'm looking at the correct part, line 20 on page 63.

8 MR. OSTOJIC: Line 17.

9 JUDGE KWON: They abbreviate it as general bone, g-e-n b-o-n?

10 THE WITNESS: Yes, Your Honour, you can find some sometimes in

11 the ICMP spreadsheet also as general bone and this is indication that

12 that was probably the case what was going on. That this is part of the

13 general bag which was marked as accordingly during the exhumation. And

14 usually it is, you know, the number which starts at the beginning,

15 usually, because when they start the exhumation, you know, first of all,

16 they mark the bag, and then it's usually because in this particular case

17 we have Zeleni Jadar and you will see it's general bone and number 2, so

18 that was the marking for the bag, number 2. And from this bag these body

19 parts were found.

20 JUDGE AGIUS: I think it's time for the break, Ms. Tapuskovic.

21 25 minutes. Thank you.

22 --- Recess taken at 12.31 p.m.

23 --- On resuming at 12.59 p.m.

24 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Ms. Tapuskovic, please.

25 MS. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honours.

Page 33549

1 Q. Mr. Janc, we shall move now to another topic which also has been

2 analysed by my colleagues, and we are going to talk about surface

3 remains. During examination-in-chief, on page 33378, you said that was

4 the second goal for which you have prepared your summary; is that right?

5 A. Yes, that's right.

6 Q. And in Annex B, which is an integral part of your summary, you

7 stated that of the 957 individuals collected from the surface, 648 have

8 been identified?

9 A. Not exactly like that. 957 cases have been collected which

10 doesn't necessarily mean the same number of individuals. And from those

11 957 cases, 648 individuals have been identified so far.

12 Q. Thank you. You are right, I misspoke when I said individuals.

13 Just like Mr. Manning, you mentioned in your summary surface

14 remains found in Kozluk, and you make a distinction between Kozluk 1 and

15 Kozluk 2 and Kozluk 3 graves which are marked KK1, KK2, and KK3

16 respectively, and the surface remains found in Kozluk are designated with

17 abbreviation KOZ; is that correct.

18 A. Yes, that's correct.

19 Q. The number of identified individuals found on the surface did not

20 change in the intervening period between the Manning report and your

21 report and it remained 14. That is in your summary, P449 [as

22 interpreted], page 5?

23 A. Yes, that's correct.

24 Q. Thank you. Since the purpose of your giving evidence here is to

25 update the data relating to exhumations and identification compared to

Page 33550

1 Manning's report, that is, since November 2007 when we received the data

2 about he -- which he testified, your task was to update this data but,

3 however, there have been no changes related to this particular grave, the

4 number 14 remains the same?

5 A. Yes, number 14 is -- remained the same, yes. 14 individuals so

6 far identified from this particular site.

7 Q. Both you and Mr. Manning treated the surface remains in your

8 respective annexes to your summaries, and in both cases those were

9 Annex B?

10 A. Yes, indeed.

11 Q. Thank you.

12 MS. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Can we please now see

13 document 4490. That's Mr. Janc's summary, Annex B. And can we look at

14 page that ends in ERN number 4275.

15 Q. If we look at this table where you speak about surface remains,

16 we see that the surface remains found in Kozluk you haven't displayed

17 here, and that the number of individuals identified in Kozluk, those 14,

18 indeed are not included in the total number of surface remain

19 identifications; is that correct?

20 A. Yes, that's correct.

21 Q. I assume that you are quite familiar with Mr. Manning's summary

22 and that you will remember that he had taken into account the surface

23 remains from Kozluk in the total number of surface remains identified at

24 the time?

25 A. Yes, indeed.

Page 33551

1 Q. Does that mean that from this number, 648 identified surface

2 remains from your summary, actually that this number should be increased

3 by 14 relating to the individuals found at Kozluk location, marked KOZ,

4 which will give us a total of 662 surface remains?

5 A. Yes, perhaps you may do that, but -- and you will get the number

6 which will increase -- increase for 14 individuals. So I was in dilemma

7 when I was preparing surface remains section to include those individuals

8 or not because of the two reasons. They were outside of the area where

9 the column was passing. They were found very close to the execution

10 site. When I was reviewing the exhumation reports, they are found on the

11 embankment of Drina river. And now when found, they are surface remains

12 but perhaps when they were -- these individuals, when they were killed or

13 when they -- yeah, when they were killed, they were perhaps covered with

14 the soil.

15 So I was in dilemma because of those two things, to include those

16 14 individuals in total counting or not, that's why they do not appear in

17 my table.

18 And also when you say Dean Manning included these as surface

19 remains, I -- remark, you know, he was not that much aware -- he did not

20 possess a lot of information as we have it now regarding the surface

21 remains. You will find in his report, for example, also I think

22 Jelova -- Vlasenicka Jelovacka Cesma as surface remains, but it is not.

23 It is included now in my report as a grave. So that's the difference.

24 Because he did not have enough information, probably he included those

25 surface remains individuals as he did it.

Page 33552

1 Q. During our previous session when I asked you about the reasons

2 for your including Liplje 8 grave into your summary given that you didn't

3 have any DNA information about the body exhumed from that particular

4 grave, you replied by saying that you didn't do that because you didn't

5 want to change Manning's report because that same grave appears there.

6 Do you remember telling me this?

7 A. Yes.

8 Q. But can you now confirm that you in a certain way have changed

9 Mr. Manning's position with regard to the total number of identified

10 persons from surface remains?

11 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Ms. Soljan.

12 MS. SOLJAN: Objection, Your Honours. This misstates the

13 evidence.

14 JUDGE AGIUS: [Microphone not activated]

15 MS. SOLJAN: In fact, Mr. Janc has not made a representation

16 regarding change of a total number of Mr. Manning's total regarding

17 surface remains. He hasn't said anything regarding a total number of

18 surface remains.

19 [Trial Chamber confers]

20 JUDGE AGIUS: It's a proposition that is being made to the

21 witness and I think he can answer it.

22 So, Mr. Janc, if you can answer the question. It's being

23 suggested to you that in a way you have shifted from your previous

24 position and changed Mr. Manning's position with regard to the total

25 number of identified persons from surface remains.

Page 33553

1 THE WITNESS: Yes, Your Honour. I can answer this question this

2 way, the entire surface remains section, which you can find it in

3 Dean Manning's report, was changed and replaced with my new section.

4 This part was changed, yes.

5 MS. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.

6 Q. Since your task was to update Mr. Manning's information, that led

7 you to conclusion for your need to change some information. However, you

8 didn't offer any rationale for that in your summary. As far as I can

9 see, you did not explain how you took different approach to certain

10 information; is that correct?

11 A. Yes, you perhaps don't have the explanation, but if you are

12 interested in it, I can give you the explanation now.

13 Q. I believe that you have given us enough explanation, Mr. Janc, so

14 let us proceed.

15 According to your Annex B to your summary, you have divided the

16 surface remains into four groups; those collected in the area of Pobudje,

17 Baljkovica, Snagovo, and other sites.

18 A. Yes, indeed.

19 Q. Why then didn't you include the surface remains from Kozluk among

20 these other sites?

21 A. I think I've answered these questions already why not.

22 Q. If I understood you correctly, that was -- the reason for that

23 was because now you have completely different information compared to

24 that that Mr. Manning had at the time when he was drafting his summary?

25 A. Yes. That was one of the reasons, yes. But I was also in

Page 33554

1 dilemma, like I explained you, to include those or not, so. But the main

2 reason was also that they are out of this route where the column was

3 passing.

4 MS. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Can we now see, please,

5 document 2993, page 24. That's Mr. Manning's summary from November 2007.

6 This page ends with ERN number 8680.

7 Q. Mr. Janc, do you recognise this table?

8 A. Yes, I do.

9 Q. I'm going to point out to you certain locations in this table,

10 primarily Brezljak, Jasikovci, Kozluk, and that refers to the surface

11 remains from Kozluk, Vlasenica, Krusev Do which is mentioned twice in

12 this table by Dean Manning. Prohici, Sjedoci and Liplje. Would you

13 agree, Mr. Janc, that these sites are not listed in your Annex B as the

14 sites where surface remains were collected?

15 A. Yes, I do agree.

16 Q. Then you will also agree with me that the number of individuals

17 identified from these sites and these surface remains was not included in

18 the total number of 648 [Realtime transcript read in error "248"]

19 identified individuals mentioned in your Annex B?

20 A. No, I do not agree.

21 Q. Please explain.

22 A. Yes, for example --

23 Q. Excuse me, we have to make a correction in the transcript.

24 Page 70, line 10, instead of 248, it should read 648. I apologise for

25 interrupting you, sir. Please go on.

Page 33555

1 A. As I explained, we have much more information regarding these

2 particular sites which are in this table than it was available to

3 Dean Manning. And for example, you have listed some names or some

4 locations, started with Brezljak. So Dean Manning placed this name here

5 or this site as a surface remains, but we found out from the exhumation

6 reports and documents we have received that this is actual grave, and

7 this particular grave is now reflected in my Annex A where you have how

8 many individuals have been identified.

9 The same goes for some other cases, I would say Vlasenica here,

10 this is now Vlasenicka Jelovacka Cesma. Also for Krusev Do-Vukojin

11 number 1. I think also for Prohici, et cetera. So Dean Manning was not

12 putting any numbers or -- any numbers here, so because he was not aware

13 if there are individuals already identified from these locations. So not

14 all of these locations are related to surface remains. Some of them are

15 graves, so he was not right when -- for some of the locations.

16 Then you have some locations which do not appear on my surface

17 remains list, but you can see it here. For example, Krusev Do-Vukojin

18 number 2, and I think for some others you will also find it, so that

19 means that no individuals have been identified yet from these locations,

20 so I did not count them.

21 So what you can see here from Dean Manning's table, it's just the

22 locations where they have collected according to the BiH authorities

23 surface remains, but it turns out not to be -- to be the right

24 information for all of these sites.

25 But I have -- I think I have included most of them in my surface

Page 33556

1 remains section. You will find these cases included in my report.

2 Q. I agree with you that Mr. Manning, in his summary, did not show

3 how many individuals were identified at each location as you did in your

4 summary. However, can you tell me, were you the one who decided the

5 status of a grave to which Manning assigned the status of surface grave

6 to be changed into regular grave?

7 A. Yes, that was me.

8 Q. Thank you. Can you confirm that each time you have made the

9 decision to change the status from the surface grave to the so-called

10 regular grave, it coincided with the statement by the competent

11 authorities of the Federation of Bosnia-Herzegovina from the records on

12 exhumation where certain graves were attributed certain statuses, whether

13 it were regular or surface graves?

14 A. Yes. In order to find out that I was consulting and reviewing

15 the documents which were provided to us upon my request for these

16 particular sites. When we received exhumation records, photographs,

17 autopsy records, everything, then you review this material and then you

18 see that it's not the surface remains but it's a grave.

19 Q. Thank you. That means, then, that all these decisions made by

20 the authorities, and that is to say, the rulings of the Tuzla cantonal

21 court who in most cases was the one to conduct exhumations were not

22 accessible to Mr. Manning, or were not at his disposal?

23 A. I don't think so that it was not accessible to Dean Manning. But

24 why he did not consulted them in this way, I don't know.

25 Q. Thank you. As you told us, Mr. Janc, you have been working with

Page 33557

1 the OTP since summer 2002 as an investigator --

2 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's correction: 2006.

3 MS. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation]

4 Q. As an investigator. Is that correct?

5 A. Yes, from 1st of June, 2006.

6 Q. Thank you. I suppose that during this time you had an

7 opportunity to familiarise yourself with all the correspondence that the

8 OTP exchanged with the organs of the Bosnia-Herzegovina Federation. I

9 am, in particular, interested in the correspondence between the OTP and

10 the Defence Ministry of Bosnia-Herzegovina. Are you familiar with that?

11 A. Yes, I think I'm familiar with that, yes.

12 Q. You also know that a large number of members of BH Army were

13 killed during the events in Srebrenica in 1995?

14 A. Yes.

15 MS. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Can we please now see

16 document 3D457. Can we please enlarge this so that the witness can see

17 this letter better.

18 Q. Mr. Janc, can you see this letter?

19 A. Yes.

20 Q. Can you tell me, are you familiar or have you seen this letter

21 before?

22 A. No, this exact letter I've never seen before.

23 Q. This is a long letter and I'm not going to read it to you in its

24 entirety because it will take a lot of time.

25 MS. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Can we just now move to page 2

Page 33558

1 and I'm going to read only one sentence from it.

2 Q. This was written by Ms. Ewa Tabeau from the demographic unit of

3 the Tribunal:

4 "[Previous translation continues] [In English] ... of matches of

5 ABiH records with the OTP list become 5.371. This comprises about 70 per

6 cent of the OTP list."

7 [Interpretation] Mr. Janc, if you are not personally familiar

8 with this letter, do you know from your contacts with the demographic

9 unit that there are some overlappings between the number of persons on

10 the missing list and the number of individuals listed as killed in the

11 BH Army lists?

12 A. Yes, I have heard about this.

13 Q. Do you by any chance know that Mr. Vujadin Popovic's Defence team

14 has sought additional explanation regarding this letter sent to the OTP

15 by Mrs. Ewa Tabeau?

16 A. No, I'm not aware of that.

17 Q. Very well.

18 MS. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Can we please now see document

19 1D1361.

20 Q. Mr. Janc, this is a rather long e-mail of three pages in which

21 the lead counsel of Mr. Popovic sought explanation.

22 If you say that you are generally not familiar with the content

23 of this letter or of this e-mail, for that matter, I suppose that you

24 also don't know that the Defence team has never received any answer to

25 this e-mail from the OTP.

Page 33559

1 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Ms. Soljan.

2 MS. SOLJAN: Your Honours, this is actually a misstatement of

3 facts. A response was sent to the Defence regarding this e-mail.

4 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you, Ms. Soljan.

5 Yes, Ms. Tapuskovic.

6 MS. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I personally know

7 of no answer to this letter. At any rate, in re-examination the

8 Prosecution can clarify this issue that we opened in cross.

9 JUDGE AGIUS: Re-examination has got nothing to do with that. If

10 a reply was sent to that letter, you are a member of the Defence team and

11 you should be aware of it. So we need to establish that first.

12 Mr. Zivanovic, are you also not aware of a reply having been

13 sent?

14 MR. ZIVANOVIC: I must check it, Your Honours.

15 JUDGE AGIUS: All right. Then I suggest you move to your next

16 question, Ms. Tapuskovic, until this is checked.

17 MS. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] I am sorry if I created a

18 confusion. We will run some checks. I'm move to another question.

19 Can we call up 1D1368, without being broadcast. Can we place on

20 the screen at the same time the original document made in B/C/S. This is

21 a Defence translation and we translated only part of the table to make

22 more visible the rubrics and their names, but we did not include names

23 because in and of themselves the names are not relevant.

24 Q. Mr. Janc, are you familiar with this list?

25 A. No, I'm not.

Page 33560

1 Q. On this list, I'm going to clarify, on this list we have

2 137 names of persons that the BH Army believes to have met their death

3 before July 1995 and the events in Srebrenica. As you can see, in the

4 outside right column you see ICMP, July 2008, and for all these persons

5 we have a protocol ID and the name of the grave-site. Do you agree?

6 A. Yes, I see these grave-sites, yes.

7 Q. Can you now look at the column on the left-hand side of the

8 screen where it says "Prosecution list" and in one of the sub-columns you

9 will see date of death Brumborg.

10 A. On this same list or table?

11 Q. Yes. On the same list. In the first horizontal line of boxes

12 under the general heading "Prosecution list," the first box underneath is

13 surname, followed by name, followed by name of father, followed by date

14 of birth, and then comes the date of death Brumborg?

15 A. Yes, I see that now.

16 MS. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Can we call up in e-court

17 1D1375, but only the letter can be broadcast. The rest of the document

18 including the list of names should not be broadcast.

19 Q. Mr. Janc, are you familiar with this letter that Geoffrey Nice,

20 principal trial attorney, addressed to the Defence Ministry of

21 Bosnia-Herzegovina on the 29th of June, 2004, asking for clarification of

22 the status of 142 members of the BH Army?

23 A. No, I'm not aware of that letter.

24 Q. You have told us, Mr. Janc, on several occasions about each

25 individual case, especially the cases that were not included in DNA

Page 33561

1 connections mentioned in your Annex C. And the Defence concludes

2 therefrom that at any rate you made sure to establish regarding every

3 individual victim whether it should be included in the list or not, and

4 whether it can be treated at Srebrenica related or not. Am I right in

5 concluding that you were careful to do that in each individual case?

6 A. No, I was not checking every and each particular individual in

7 the ICRC or in the missing list, so what I was including was -- were the

8 individuals which appeared on the ICMP list.

9 Q. But did you ask from the demographic unit information relating to

10 members of the BH Army so that you can check whether their inclusion in

11 the list of those identified or those missing is in keeping with the

12 Prosecution case about who can be considered as Srebrenica-related

13 victims?

14 A. No, I did not ask for such list.

15 Q. Thank you. On this document you see that the Prosecution asked

16 this information from the Ministry of Defence of Bosnia-Herzegovina on

17 the 29th of June, 2004; correct?

18 A. Yes, I see that, yes. Correct.

19 Q. In paragraph 4 from the bottom you can see that the Prosecution

20 gave the Defence Ministry of Bosnia-Herzegovina 30 days to provide

21 information in response to this query?

22 A. Yes.

23 Q. Thank you.

24 MS. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Can we call up 1D1362, and it

25 should not be broadcast.

Page 33562

1 Q. Mr. Janc, while we discuss this document, please do not mention

2 the name. The other information is sufficient.

3 Can you tell me when was this certificate issued?

4 A. It's 28 of July, 2004.

5 Q. And we saw a moment ago that the request of the Prosecution was

6 dated 29 June 2004; right?

7 A. Yes.

8 Q. This certificate says that the person named went missing on the

9 18th of August, 1994. Can you see that?

10 A. Yes.

11 Q. By checking all the lists of missing persons, the Defence

12 established that the said person under the same protocol ID, which is

13 5080/04, and we have him on the list of missing persons, document P2414,

14 and we found his name on the list admitted as P3006.

15 Can you tell us how is it possible that a person who has a

16 certificate in their name saying that they died in 1994, how can such a

17 person be found on the list of Srebrenica-related victims made in

18 2009 -- 4?

19 A. I'm afraid I'm not the right person to be asked this question,

20 how is that possible. It can be -- you know, there can be various

21 reasons for that. I don't know. First of all, we would have to check

22 these certificates and various other things, so I don't have the answer

23 for this question, how is it possible.

24 MS. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Can we call up 1D1363. Also not

25 to be broadcast.

Page 33563

1 Q. Can you see this certificate, Mr. Janc?

2 A. Yes, I can see it.

3 Q. This certificate was issued on the same date as the previous one,

4 the 28th of July, 2004, that is, within the time allowed by the

5 Prosecution for the information to be provided. And this person is on

6 the list attached to the letter that Mr. Geoffrey Nice made available to

7 the ministry on the 29th of June, 2004.

8 Can we see that this person was killed on the 12th of August,

9 1992?

10 A. Yes, I can see that.

11 Q. I suppose that you will also tell me that you are not aware of

12 this case as you were not aware of the previous case?

13 A. You are right. I'm not aware of this case.

14 Q. Will you tell me, Mr. Janc, are you now, after receiving this

15 information contained in these two certificates, are you now going to

16 take some steps such as sending a letter to the ICMP to inform them, as

17 you have done in the several cases concerning illogical DNA connections,

18 and ask for a clarification from ICMP how these persons were included on

19 the list of those identified, whereas we have a certificate from the

20 Ministry of Defence that they had died much, much earlier, before the

21 events in Srebrenica?

22 A. First of all, I would probably contact our demographics unit

23 because this certificates, I think, are only one source of information

24 when the person might died. So I know that they are -- when checking

25 particular person, they are checking within different sources,

Page 33564

1 statistical sources from Bosnia and Herzegovina. It's not only one

2 source. And you can -- very often you can find different dates where the

3 person has died.

4 So I think this is only one source, and more sources should be

5 checked. And when we find this information, if there is a real doubt

6 about it, then we would inform ICMP about it, yes.

7 JUDGE AGIUS: All right.

8 JUDGE KWON: You have a question -- oh, it's time. Before that,

9 Madam Tapuskovic, does it mean that this person is appearing in

10 Mr. Janc's report in confidential Annex D? Has it been established? Or

11 Ms. Soljan, do you agree?

12 MS. SOLJAN: Yes, Your Honour.

13 JUDGE KWON: In what grave?

14 MS. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour.

15 MS. SOLJAN: I will have to double-check that.

16 JUDGE AGIUS: You will double-check that in the meantime and we

17 will reconvene on Monday in the morning at 9.00. Thank you.

18 MS. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I would like -- I

19 would have just one more brief question, sorry for interrupting you. You

20 gave us a dead-line for submitting 92 bis statements for our experts that

21 were seven days, we had to do it within seven days. Since we still have

22 mentions of DNA connections and DNA analyses, we would like this

23 dead-line for expert statements to start running from the end of the

24 testimony of Mr. Janc so that our experts can give their opinion on that.

25 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. Permission granted.